Google "business ethics", pick a site, any site, and think about how the various topics within the rubric might affect product pricing. You may not think any of it is applicable, but there is a chance you might.
Last edited:
Ethics is not applicable to the pricing of film.
"business ethics"
Not always. But sometimes. If I read you correctly.Being opportunistic is not always immoral.
But if there is no misrepresentation, a business can charge whatever it wants for what is essentially a luxury item (namely, film), and ethics does not come into play.
Ethics does not address what someone can do, it addresses what someone should do.
Actually, ethics really only has to do with what someone does.
It's called "business risk" and it cannot be passed on the customers, plus every business out there has to pay bills and etc... it's not a valid argument to sell things at 20x of their initial value... Considering the fact that they don't sell those films only, I think...
It's still called greed to me.
Are people actually arguing that Kodak and others should sell film at a serious loss?
Film was being dumped at below cost in 2002. All across the board there were absolute bargains that I wish I'd taken advantage of. Mind you, I bet that wasn't the typical price even in 2002.
No doubt the cost of Kodak bulk rolls has increased, and there's a mod here who keeps explaining why.
So, for you, it is an after the fact determination?
Fujifilm Velvia 50 was under $5 a roll. Everything was being dumped. So much to choose from.
something that is a true anomaly
I would say that, for the majority of years they were trickling out that stock of film, there were making almost nothing from it. They probably spent over ten years kicking themselves for buying it. Good for them that they can actually get a return on the investment.
the store that koraks referenced did something that is a true anomaly
I wonder if developing a color film for scanning only will reduce the price And technologies involved.
Optical printing with an enlarger of color still films has to be incredibly rare, like 500 ppm.
It is not a "personal choice" issue when what is essentially being done is calling a seller immoral for trying to make a profit while selling a product within its expected price range. Attempting to sell film for 100000x the normal price is not even immoral (although it would be stupid) because film is not a necessity. You are not depriving anyone of anything by trying to maximize the profit on a discretionary item.
I have a suspicion you're off by an order of magnitude or two.
With a few obvious exceptions, most camera stores are really tiny businesses. The most successful one in this area, which has survived 50 years, is just a mile down the same street from where I once worked as a buyer. But we sold construction supplies. And even at my personal station, we would literally transact more dollars and profit margin in half an hour than any local camera store did in a month. And I was directly involved in only a third of that company. But I had a distinct game plan which included both high-end products, and attracted an especially professional clientele. All the competitors who went with a low profit margin business model never put on enough fat for winter hibernation, so to speak, and one-by one went out of business when the next recession arrived.
Kodak made a massive mistake when they took once abundant cash reserves and used them to buy back their own stocks rather than investing in new infrastructure, or refining and materializing extant R&D. And in their case, Winter arrived early, along with a lot of digital Night Walkers. But that very kind of mistake was quite popular among CEO's at the time, and tanked plenty of manufacturers besides Kodak. Now there simply isn't any more wiggle room for that kind of roll of the dice. Perhaps that's the best for everyone in the long run, at least as far as ongoing film production goes. They might finally understand what kind of niche business model they need to be to keep going forward.
But color film for "scanning only"?? Heck, film scanners themselves are an endangered species. What would be the point in even making and shooting film? That sounds more like business suicide than anything realistic. Any legacy company which forgets their roots entirely is just plained doomed. Even Fuji has the wisdom to still call themselves Fujifilm, even though they make darn little film anymore. But it does tie into them still being the primary provider of color printing paper, in terms of the psychology of it. What if Nikon decided they could make more money on swimming pools rather than cameras and lenses - would anyone buy a swimming pool just because it had a Nikon logo on it?
Even Fuji has the wisdom to still call themselves Fujifilm, even though they make darn little film anymore.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?